Delayed possession and one-sided apartment terms justified refund with interest; builder's claim to compel acceptance failed.

Inordinate delay by a builder in obtaining the occupancy certificate and offering possession justified refund to the flat purchaser with appropriate compensation, because a purchaser cannot be compelled to accept possession after a substantial lapse of time, especially where the complaint had effectively continued allotment. Contract terms that gave the builder stronger remedies for buyer default while restricting the allottee's relief for delayed possession were one-sided, unfair and unenforceable as an unconscionable standard-form arrangement. Interest at 10.7% per annum on the refund was upheld as reasonable, with the stay period excluded from computation. The appeals failed and the consumer forum's refund order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the builder's delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate and offering possession justified refund of the amount deposited by the flat purchaser instead of compelling acceptance of delayed possession; (ii) whether the terms of the apartment buyer's agreement were one-sided, unfair and unreasonable so as to be unenforceable; (iii) whether interest at 10.7% per annum awarded by the National Commission was justified.

Issue (i): whether the builder's delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate and offering possession justified refund of the amount deposited by the flat purchaser instead of compelling acceptance of delayed possession.

Analysis: The agreement required timely completion and possession, but the occupancy certificate was obtained only after a substantial delay. The delay amounted to deficiency of service, and a purchaser cannot be compelled to accept possession after an inordinate lapse of time, particularly where an alternate property had already been arranged and the complaint effectively conveyed refusal to continue with the delayed allotment.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent. Refund of the amount deposited, with appropriate compensation, was warranted.

Issue (ii): whether the terms of the apartment buyer's agreement were one-sided, unfair and unreasonable so as to be unenforceable.

Analysis: The contractual framework gave the builder stringent rights for delayed payment and cancellation, while imposing restrictive and delayed remedies on the allottee for delay in possession. Such asymmetry reflected unequal bargaining power and constituted an unfair trade practice. An unfair or unconscionable term in a standard form contract is not binding where it is oppressive to the weaker party.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent. The terms relied upon by the builder were held to be unenforceable as one-sided and unfair.

Issue (iii): whether interest at 10.7% per annum awarded by the National Commission was justified.

Analysis: Where possession is not delivered within the stipulated time, the allottee is entitled to refund with reasonable interest from the date of payment till refund. The National Commission applied the statutory rate under the relevant rules, and excluded the period during which stay of cancellation operated, making the award equitable and justified.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent. The award of interest at 10.7% per annum was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the consumer forum's order directing refund with interest and compensation for delayed possession was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of inordinate delay by a builder in delivering possession, the allottee may treat the contract as terminated, seek refund with reasonable interest, and resist enforcement of one-sided contractual terms that are unfair or unconscionable.

---